We are discussing the Demystifier's paper "Quantum mechanics: myths and facts". http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0609163 Previously: Myth 1 https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=229497 Myth 2 https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=230693 QM implies that nature is fundamentally random The topic is the claim that the common statement that nature is fundamentally random--as opposed to merely unpredictable--is a myth. By myths we mean widely repeated statements which, true or false, are not something we can validly assert given our current understanding. I don't have any questions about this section of the paper myself and have included it only for completeness sake. I'm ready to discuss any aspect anyone else wants to discuss. However, I will add that I have a severe case of gut reaction against objective randomness. Consider an event which has possible outcomes A and B. The event occurs and we observe B instead of A. The claim that "the outcome of this event is random" can only mean that if we ask, "Why did B occur and not A?" the answer must be "no reason; none." To say "B happened because .." is to identify that which determined B and that is to say it was not random. But this is to say, once again, that there is no reason that B occurred. Things just happen for no reason?!?! And somehow this multitude of things happening for no reason conspires to create the visible macro order? I can't accept that. And to say "there is no reason B occurred," whether true or not, bugs me because it is a willful decision to stop looking. It is too much like the creationist who says that evolution can't explain all the facts so we should just accept that God did it. To attribute something to miracle or to it-just-happens, either one, is to just give up. Benjamin Franklin could just as well have shrugged his shoulders and said, "Who knows about lightning? It just happens." (I don't have anything against miracles per se. I'm a theist. But scientists qua scientist should not incorporate them into the scientific approach since it necessarily puts an end to the method.) We say of a supposed random event, "It could turn out A or B". Afterwards, we say that although B happened, it could have been A. What do we mean by "could have been"? B happened, period. I haven't thought it about long enough, and haven't read enough, but I suspect that the notion of "could have been otherwise" would turn out to have serious logical problems on close examination. Just a hunch.